Talk:Vehicle Features/Engines
How do we define the engine model? Here's how: engine model. ]] • • 15:46, November 1, 2015 (UTC) ;IMPORTANT : I made a mistake (in a rush, lol) in the above diagram. It is "Single Overhead Camshaft (SOHC), not DOHC, as there's still only one camshaft per bank of cylinders. '' Questions? *Is still possible to identify engines that are using "fake" covers or should these be verified with Rockstar Editor? [[User:Camilo Flores|'SWAT Cam F']] 15:54, November 1, 2015 (UTC) **Unfortunately, some have fake covers '''AND' engine models, for example, the Dubsta and its 6x6 variant, the BeeJay XL, etc. There's also some that have covers that match their 3D model, for example, Stinger, Stinger GT, Z-Type, etc, and finally, there's some that have fake covers which aren't really detailed enough to give a rough idea of its engine, for example, the Baller, and these don't have a 3D model either, so they're pretty much unidentifiable. It'd be a waste of time asking R*, since they're only going to say what it was originally based off, or what the real-life counterpart has, as the model can't and will not support what they say. It'd be a waste of time, best off to just document what we're given, as asking R* won't get us anywhere, in-fact it could make things more complicated than they already are. • • 16:03, November 1, 2015 (UTC) Supercharger model discovery? Case Closed Well, looks like I've found something. Something seen prominent here and here. It is what I can only really call a supercharger. It appears as a half-cylindrical metal texture on the engines, and I've seen it on a couple more vehicles too. Though really bad quality, the model seems similar to things like this, this, this and this. What do we think? (Car enthusiasts only xD) :P Monk Talk 19:06, November 19, 2015 (UTC) :So this is a supercharger, huh? Interesting. Now it explains why the bulky engine :P Anyway. Nice discovery. [[User:Camilo Flores|'SWAT Cam F']] 23:47, November 19, 2015 (UTC) ::Well, that's what I'm asking: do you think it's a supercharger? I mean, technically, a turbocharger can't be fitted alongside a supercharger, yet somehow the Faction has both as stock. Still not sure if it really is a supercharger, as the model is that bad. Monk Talk 23:52, November 19, 2015 (UTC) ::Well, probably it is, but it doesn't have as much lines as a real supercharger, so it's confusing. Also, it looks bulky on the Transporter, so it would be oversized. I dunno XD About the Faction, it doesn't affect that much having both parts? It would be either powerful or messed as hell XDXD -- [[User:Camilo Flores|'SWAT Cam F']] 00:02, November 20, 2015 (UTC) :::Tbh, I can't see a reason why it wouldn't work, it'd just be expensive, and complex. But it'd reduce lag and gives some great VVT options, but I can't see rockstar going to the details and thought of adding a twincharger into the game, considering the rarity of them. It's likely a developer oversight, assuming this is a supercharger. Monk Talk 00:11, November 20, 2015 (UTC) :::I see. Either case, you're fine with these discoveries. Something new to learn :P -- [[User:Camilo Flores|'SWAT Cam F']] 00:27, November 20, 2015 (UTC) ::::Because of how bad the models are, I can say there's not enough evidence to prove they're Supercharger models. I'll leave it as it is. Case closed. Monk Talk 15:48, November 24, 2015 (UTC) Cams Just a formula for cams in case you didn't know: *2 Cams + Inline Engine = DOHC (Twin-Cam to me and you) *1 Cam + Inline Engine = SOHC *2 Cams + V/W Engine = SOHC *4 Cams + V/W Engine = DOHC (AKA Quad Cam) ;DOHC = Double (or Dual) Overhead Camshaft ;SOHC = Single Overhead Camshaft Monk Talk 15:42, November 24, 2015 (UTC) Page renaming Case Closed This page should be renamed to link back to the "Vehicle Features" page (like this page), since engines are obviously a feature of all vehicles (and a very important one). A section about engines should also be added to the "Vehicle Features" page, linking to this as the main page concerning the feature. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | ) 17:56, December 16, 2015 (UTC) :Well, I disagree, this page is huge, it can't be simply merged into another big article. Thegtaseeker96 (talk) 18:03, December 16, 2015 (UTC) :I disagree too. This page is too big and detailed that it would be a huge pain in the ass for both who merge the page and the people who try to read the page. Plus, as you yourself said, engines are a very important features of the vehicles so they can have their own detailed page. The only thing that can be done in my opinion is providing a link of this page on the page "Vehicles features". Merging this page would be a bad idea. Myth(Please leave your threats here/ ) 18:11, December 16, 2015 (UTC) ::That's right, just make an introduction and a redirect to this article on the Vehicles Features page and the job is done. Thegtaseeker96 (talk) 18:18, December 16, 2015 (UTC) :::Your points are noted and valid, but would not a redirect to the new name of the page left on this one be enough to fix the issue of people looking for this article? Also, can anyone offer suggestions as to what information should be added to an "Engines" section on the "Vehicle Features" article that explains this page in a concise manner? I do not wish to simply copy and paste the introduction of this article into the "Vehicle Features" article. :::TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | ) 18:28, December 16, 2015 (UTC) ::::Agreed with the merge. If it goes "Vehicle Features/Engines" it's not really moving the page into the Vehicle Features article, it's just a subsidiary of the Vehicle Features article; another article. I'll do the merge, as I don't think Myth and Seeker understand what he means. Monk Talk 18:53, December 16, 2015 (UTC) :::Konan, I thought you said about merging with the "Vehicle Features" page, not changing it to a subpage (which I completely agree), that's why I reverted your edit when you added a template. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thegtaseeker96 (talk) 19:02, December 16, 2015 (UTC) ::::I actually added a template, not a template. In any case, I am glad that the misunderstanding was resolved. However, no-one has yet offered any suggestions as to what concise description should be added to an "Engines" section on the "Vehicle Features" article, so could anyone please offer some? Thank you. ::::TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | ) 19:17, December 16, 2015 (UTC) :::::I'll do it now. Monk Talk 19:19, December 16, 2015 (UTC) ::::::Thank you for that. This case is now closed. ::::::TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | ) 20:26, December 16, 2015 (UTC)